It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Icke or Jones?

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 02:19 PM
link   
O.K. I’ll make this nice and simple:

John Kerry won the Democratic Nominations against some of the worst Democrats to hold office, such as Howard Dean and went up against others which have never held office such as Wesley Clark, however the best candidate for the democrats at the present moment has yet to work towards entering the election stage.

Now I’ll explain why, at the present moment America is in an awful state - budget deficit, unemployment, War on Terror and the International Community are having bad relations with America. Now these issues would not have gone away if the Democrats got into power in 2004(2005), however they would have only intended to damage the democratic party. So you do not put your “all” into getting elected as it will allow for the Republicans to take more blame for the economy, war, etc while you sit back, relax and plan for the end of their second term. This stops you and your party from taking damage.

It is clear they did this by the people they had running, the way in which they handled the election campaign and the alternatives they put forward. If you think this Policy is stupid you are very blind to facts. Why would the party try and get into power to clean up the Republicans mess? Which they cannot clean up? When 4 years down the line, they can pull out of Iraq with public support and slam the Republican party.

It gives the grand illusion of a “Two-Party” system, instead of a one Party system. Which is the idea, it keeps them trapped in a Party system instead of people realising that party politics don’t work.

Also that was the point in the law. It was to find where the Public Opinion would lay. It was not there to do anything major. It was just a test and is why they placed a time limit on it. Also do you think the NRA would endorse Bush if he was seen to ban firearms? It’s all about illusions and in the mean-time, the states make gun-ownership harder and harder.



NRA Chief Lobbyist Chris W. Cox added, "Four years ago, NRA members went to the polls and stopped Al Gore`s plans to continue the war on America`s gun owners. But now, we face a greater threat than even the Clinton/Gore Administration posed. John Kerry and John Edwards are the most anti-gun presidential team in our country`s history.
www.nrapvf.org...

Also due to Bush’s position on firearms and the Second Amendment, if the Bill was re-introduced his hand would have been almost forced to use the veto. Something he attempts not to do and so far has not done (if memory serves me).

And guess what? 4 years from now, when America has higher unemployment, more people coming back maimed from wars overseas, larger budget deficit it’ll be easier to get into power for the Democrats and easier to ban firearms. Simple, party politics. They just need the crime rate to go even higher and several more “mass” killings and bye, bye Second Amendment.




posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 03:15 PM
link   
WRONG

And don't patronize me with your "I'll make it simple" statement. I think what you are saying is wrong and illogical. And I know of virtually no one, in my large circle of politically minded friends. None of which have a lot of love for either party that think any of what you are saying is even close to true.

I presume you think the republicans wanted to loose to? You can't believe they stole the election. Or do you think the republicans wanted to win despite the reasons the democrats wanted to loose? Who were the democrats that came up with this stupis stratagy? Did they all get together and decide who was bad enought to run and loose?

Your arguments all fail, the problems you state the Democrats didn't want to face will be worse after the next election. So will they try and lose that again so they don't have to face them? BS

And your beliefs over who were good condidates is BS too, Dean was good, Clark was good. As far as Democrats go anyway.

Who do you think would have been better, who do the dems have that could have won that they are saving for 2008? Hillary
If she runs she will lose!

Dean was the populos candidate, I think they may have even rigged the vote against him.

But seriously here is the only question I want you to answer -

[B]Why go so far as to pull off the Oklahoma City Bombing just to pass that crappy gun bill and then let Bush have it run out just to get a few votes for Bush when they were going to steal the election anyway?[/B]



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 05:27 PM
link   
Oklahoma City Bombing was about the Militia. It was not about firearms. That was used to place a seed of doubt in the Public, which over the next few years they will expand upon. Probably by so called members of a Militia making attacks on the America Government.

As for the other points? Go do an OCR based course in Government and Politics, Political Ideas and Concepts or better yet go to Oxford Brookes University and do the Political Thought section, both of which cover the idea of Parties not attempting to win elections, so they can make a much "larger" majority next time around. It's good your Social group knows none of this.
Just God bless the fact two Politics classes now know they do such things and every year hundreds more people do. I also like how this exact topic was discussed in one of my classes and the teachers all acknowledge election nominations are rigged as well the Governments and their Parties.

...and for #s sake, if you're going to swear, swear. Don't code it behind abbreviations it is one of the most annoying things on any internet and/or real life.

Oh yeah and as for H. Clinton, at best she'll be used to get a "hung" Congress if they do not see their option this time around. Best way to ruin a "majority" Government, is when you get is less then 10 so you can ruin their image and catapult yourself into power with the public thinking the "Majority" just messed up.

www.amazon.com...=1120689099/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/002-7108623-1377600?v=glance&s=books - fairly good book on it. I'll hunt the one we use at College out for you, which goes into detail if you wish to read up on it?



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 12:53 PM
link   
I am sorry to have to say this because I try to maintain a a decent level of discourse in any debate. But you sir are a jerk.

First of all your snarky comment about using the abbreviation "BS" is so childish. You know wat it means, we all know what it means. I'm sorry that you have a problem with people using an abbreviation on the internet and in real life, deal with it.

And yes political parties do intentionally lose elections at times (I have studied politics so keep your condesending remarks about taking courses on it to yourself). That I did not dispute. I was disputing it in this case (and the fact that I have heard no one in life or the internet entertain that theory further backs up that you are in a small minority in believing it), I questioned the assertions that the OCB was carried out as a means to pass that lame gun law (amongst other things). You were trying to argue against that point with what seemed to be a completely illogical argument. The last election was considered "one of the most important election ever" (to quote many democrats). I highly doubt the Demorats would think that despite all the things they had in their favour because of the anger and low poll numbers of GWB they wanted to loose in order to win bigger next time. Why risk intentionally losing to an unpopular president on the chance that they might win against whoever the GOP run in the next election? They don't even know who that might be. And again if your argument is supposed to back up the NWO 2 parties being run by one belief then it makes even less sense. Why lose the gun law they had to blow up a building to get when you run both parties? They win no matter who wins.

It seems to me you have chosen a belief of how the world is and are now fitting the evidence around the belief. This is my problem with Alex Jones some times too, instead of looking at the evidence and then trying to figure out what it might mean, he has his paradigm set out and fits the fact to it. It's not that I think he did that from day one but that is how he works in his documentaries some times.

Whats worse than that you arogantly state all these things as fact. Pure conjecture stated as fact is so egotistical it is again beneath someone with decent intelligence (as you obviously have).

I am more than happy to debate this with you, but don't insult me. It's just childish.



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
Oklahoma City Bombing was about the Militia. It was not about firearms.


This whole debate was started when I stated that I thought Alex Jones was wrong with the assertion that Oklahoma City Bombing was partially done to get the Clinton gun law passed.

I was stating that I though Aj's claim that it was about firearms was wrong, and then you lept to his defense and ploted out a whole theory (stated as fact) as to why it was. I contend your theory, but you are not happy to debate it and accept a difference of opinion. No you have to attempt to insult me and continue to state what you THINK as fact, all pure conjecture.

I also agree that nominations may be rigged and probably are, I stated this before you may note. I think we agree on many things, but disagree with your argument to prove that OCB had anything to do with that gun control bill. I do believe the US goverment was involved with it along with 9-11 (based on the evidence not on a pre-conceived NOW fear). I just don't think the evidence fully backs up the whole NWO theory, I think there is undoubtable a group of wealthy people that drive policy to a large extent but I don't believe they have the amount of power that Jones or Icke believes. But I am open minded enough to change my mind when more evidence is presented to me.

The book you linked to does look good. But from the information and the reviews it does not appear to contain anything I have not read before.

Tell me out of interest, what are your opinions of Noam Chomsky, I think he is head a shoulders above most political anylasts. Mainly because he backs up any assertions with facts that I can look into. And unlike Jones his lectures are not full of conjecture based around loose facts. Again let me say I like Jones, but I am open minded enough to notice his flaws.

[edit on 7-7-2005 by parabolee]



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 01:36 PM
link   
"In many ways, the Oklahoma City bombing spelled the end of the anti-government militia movement to which McVeigh was linked. In the years following the bombing most such groups either disbanded or were pushed further to the fringes of American politics. Additionally, by being the first major American city to suffer a mass-casualty terrorist attack, Oklahoma City's response to the bombing was carefully scrutinized by security experts and law enforcement in the years following the bombing, and then again following the attacks of September 11, 2001."

en.wikipedia.org...

www.carpenoctem.tv...

www.highbeam.com...:62607869&refid=ink_tptd_np&skeyword=&teaser=

"Six years after the Oklahoma City bombing made the word "militia" part of the American lexicon, the number of such groups has dwindled dramatically. The reasons, say militia watchdogs: Crackdowns by law enforcement officials, and members weary of waiting for a revolution that never came. The most recent figures by the Southern Poverty Law Center, whose tracking of hate groups is highly respected, show the number of militia groups dropping from a peak of 370 in 1996 to 68 in 1999."

www.usatoday.com...

"The Federal Assault Weapons Ban, or AWB, is a provision of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a federal law of the United States that includes a prohibition on the sale of semiautomatic assault weapons manufactured after the date of the ban's enactment. The ten-year ban was passed by Congress on September 13, 1994 and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton the same day. The ban expired on September 13, 2004 as part of the law's sunset provision."

en.wikipedia.org...(USA)

The bombing was done in 1995. I don't see how it could have been used to force it through when it was done the year after.

I'll get back to the rest of it later, still trying to get a hold of people I know in London



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 01:49 PM
link   
See now that was a nicer post, Like say I am happy to debate and discuss, but let's keep the discourse civil please.

I am completly willing to accept that the Militia thing was a motive in the OCB. Just not the assertion made by AJ about the gun law.

Are you from England? I am but all my family are in Sheffield. I'm still in shock over the bombings, that is slowly turning to anger at Tony Blair for his part in this. Willingly (as per 9-11) or indirectly as a retaliation for the illegal war in Iraq.

I hope your friends are ok.



posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 07:35 PM
link   
Yeah, just heard from my friend in the last hour so all is good.


On to Noam Chomsky.

To be honest, I do not know all that much about Noam Chomsky except from what I have learned through Rage Against the Machine and a few interviews. Noam gave Zack de la Rocha most of his "views" of the world and even Zack credits him for the work he did/has done and some of the rumoured stuff they are "working" on together, now that Zack is a writer.

Edit:

www.ratm.com... - an interview you might wish to see.



[edit on 10/7/2005 by Odium]



posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 08:50 PM
link   
Hey guy's on monday Alex Jones is going to have David Icke on his show for 2 hours. You can listen to his show on infowars.com all you need is winamp or any other program. Should be intresting..



posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 10:42 PM
link   
For now I still sway to Jones.

Dallas



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 09:29 AM
link   
Yeah I saw that interview. Rage got me into Noam, well them and Bill Hicks.

On a side note: Is it just my computer or does the formatting of the boards keep going out, the text doesn't fit on my screen sometimes. But sometimes it does?!??!



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 03:27 PM
link   
Im a fan of Alex Jones and i have heard pretty much all his theories and the evidence he shows. I've also read a few of David Icke's books, i've seen the 3 disc dvd Reptilian Agenda with Credo Mutwa. The way I see it, they both have the same beliefs about the NWO and Illuminati, except Icke looks at the bigger picture and answers the 'why?' question Jones doesnt seem to have an answer for.



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 05:52 PM
link   
It's funny, Icke is total new age...but alot of the anti NWO tinfoil folks are Christians who hate new agers.

I'll take Alex Jones any day. I really dislike the Christian slant on the new world order stuff. Why cant people look at things in a more historical content then going off on pretty retarded tangents?

And holy crap, Icke on Jone's show...the two most infamous conspiracy thoerists(next to Jim Marrs and Jordan Maxwell) in one show!



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by 8bitagent
And holy crap, Icke on Jone's show...the two most infamous conspiracy thoerists(next to Jim Marrs and Jordan Maxwell) in one show!


I resent that! Why was I not mentioned?



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by parabolee

I think he's way off on the NWO anti-gun agenda. I don't see how owning guns is going to protect us from the NWO, it would just give them more reason to impose a police state. Look at Waco, having guns helped them didn't it, no it didn't.


I'm going to agree with you. Guns are not the answer. As a christian I would never take that option.


Originally posted by parabolee
An armed revolution is not the answer, we need the police and military to be on our side when we stand against tyranny. A civil war in 2005 is far from a desirable progress towards freedom. We still have a supposed democracy here, we can use it to demand liberty.


In my opinion, that, I don't agree with. Democracy, in my opinion, is an illusion. I wouldn't call it a delusion because, you're right, we can vote. But besides voting and protesting, I don't see what other "freedoms" democracy represents. What I would call a delusion is the idea that presidents have the right to make up their own minds and choices. Hence an ilusion. You pick your president. So? Something that always sticks in my mind when I think of voting is the fact that Billionaires, who finance these electoral campaigns, also "vote".

Also, in my opinion, liberty like reality, is relative. All society has to do is make an image of freedom, label it, package it and sell it. And let me tell you they've got some pretty good methods when it comes to marketing. So I don't think there's going to be a problem with "freedom" in the NWO. Except for me that is.



Originally posted by parabolee
And the more they grip there fists to control us the more people will slip from there grasps and if they send the police to force us we will have to be the peacfull ones, so there is no doubt who is in the wrong, only then will the police and military stand with the people and not the power.


I think they have better methods of control than sending the police to break your door down. We've got Congress to thank for that. It is when you don't yield to Congress that the send the Cops. And after that they've got CNN as well as the rest of pimetime to destroy your credibility and make you look like the bad guy if you disagree. But even if they did send the Cops and Millitary you're chances of winning are slim or none. The first and above all commandments you're taught when you go to the army is OBEY ORDERS. Same thing with the Cops, just maybe at a lower degree. So unless the military and the police experience a major conscience and moral crisis I don't think anybody opposing them is going to have any luck. Take Waco for example.

In conclusion, I'd say NWO is a reality. "Power of the people" if not an ilusion, died or was lost with the invention of the gun.



[edit on 11-7-2005 by MisTicaL]



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by MisTicaL
Democracy, in my opinion, is an illusion. I wouldn't call it a delusion because, you're right, we can vote. But besides voting and protesting, I don't see what other "freedoms" democracy represents. What I would call a delusion is the idea that presidents have the right to make up their own minds and choices. Hence an ilusion. You pick your president. So? Something that always sticks in my mind when I think of voting is the fact that Billionaires, who finance these electoral campaigns, also "vote".


I agree with you partially, but as I am British I have more faith in the process. Sure democracy has a great many problems but it is the fault of the people and their inability to demand justice and accountability from their politicians that makes US democracy a joke. The whole two party systems creates an atmosphere where any attack on one side is seen as lies from the other side. I see the problem in the US is mainly that people defend their own party too much, the democrats less so but they still do it. In Britian we still have problems but we give our politicians a damn hard time and call them on their crap at often as possible. Hell if you listened to me rail on about Tony Blair you would think I hated him, but I voted for him twice and would do so again as depite the many things he has done that I hate, I still think he has done some great things for the country compared to before he came to power. Sure I would much prefer a Labour prime minister that shared my politics more, and I will continue to fight for that. But democracy isn't the problem a lack of accountability due to apathy and ignorance are.


Also, in my opinion, liberty like reality, is relative. All society has to do is make an image of freedom, label it, package it and sell it. And let me tell you they've got some pretty good methods when it comes to marketing. So I don't think there's going to be a problem with "freedom" in the NWO. Except for me that is.


I can't disagree with this at all. We're on the same page there.



I think they have better methods of control than sending the police to break your door down. We've got Congress to thank for that. It is when you don't yield to Congress that the send the Cops. And after that they've got CNN as well as the rest of pimetime to destroy your credibility and make you look like the bad guy if you disagree. But even if they did send the Cops and Millitary you're chances of winning are slim or none. The first and above all commandments you're taught when you go to the army is OBEY ORDERS. Same thing with the Cops, just maybe at a lower degree. So unless the military and the police experience a major conscience and moral crisis I don't think anybody opposing them is going to have any luck. Take Waco for example.


I agree with that to a certain degree but don't you think that many people in the police force are honest civillians too? Many of them will be just as upset when our liberties are being stripped, and if we uphold peacfull protests in mass numbers and they see that we are the peacfull ones getting our faces smashed by government because we wont doa s we are told the good ones will come to our side. Most of the police and military are honest ahard working working class people. Their families and friends are us, they are not with the power mongers on these issues. When we rise up as one, they will not stand with the opressers. Of course this depends how it all goes down. ut in the past successful revolutions have included the law enforcment switching sides to the oppressed and against the oppressers.


In conclusion, I'd say NWO is a reality. "Power of the people" if not an ilusion, died or was lost with the invention of the gun.


Not yet it isn't and if we shed that defeatist attitude and have hope for mankind we can save the future from it. If you believe that this so called NWO has tatol control then you are blind to all the internall struggle going on in all politics and international relations, if their is a NWO and not just a loosly affiliated group of uber wealthy scumm bags, then know they don't control everything and there will always be honest people fighting against them at all levels. We just have to do our part too.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join